Shared Custody and the Minimum Vital Income

Shared Custody and the Minimum Vital Income:

The role of municipal registration in accessing social benefits

Author: Research by Azuara&Baviera Abogados | Eduard Baviera Bea
Article 1 – March 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. What is the Minimum Vital Income and how is the household unit determined?
2. What happens with children under shared custody for MVI purposes?
3. What has the Supreme Court established in Judgment 742/2025 of July 18?
4. Can the parent not registered with the children apply for the MVI as an individual?
5. What role does municipal registration play in the parenting plan and regulatory agreement negotiations?
6. Are there differences between the Catalan Civil Code and the common Civil Code in this matter?
7. What practical implications does this doctrine have for families with shared custody?

Conclusion. Practical keys: municipal registration as a strategic decision in family proceedings.

INTRODUCTION

Shared custody and its consequences beyond family law

Shared custody has become the preferred regime in numerous Spanish autonomous communities, with Catalonia at the forefront since the enactment of Law 25/2010 on the Second Book of the Catalan Civil Code. However, the consequences of this custody model extend well beyond the organisation of the time children spend with each parent. One of its lesser-known yet practically significant effects is its impact on access to social benefits, particularly the Minimum Vital Income (Ingreso Mínimo Vital, or MVI). Recent doctrine from the Supreme Court, established in Judgment 742/2025 of July 18, has determined that the children’s municipal registration constitutes the decisive criterion for defining the household unit for the purposes of this benefit, regardless of whether shared custody exists. This article examines the scope of this doctrine, its regulatory framework, and its implications for professional practice and affected families.

ANALYSIS

1. What is the Minimum Vital Income and how is the household unit determined?

The Minimum Vital Income (MVI) is a non-contributory social security benefit regulated by Royal Decree-Law 20/2020 of May 29, designed to guarantee a minimum level of income for individuals and household units in situations of economic vulnerability. In 2026, the monthly
amount for an individual beneficiary stands at €733.60, increasing progressively according to the number of household unit members, up to €1,613.92 per month for the largest configurations.

The concept of household unit is decisive for the calculation of the benefit. Under Article 6(1) of RDL 20/2020, a household unit comprises all persons residing at the same address who are related by kinship up to the second degree of consanguinity. Article 6(3) of the same regulation establishes that the same person may not form part of two or more household units simultaneously. This prohibition has direct consequences in shared custody arrangements, where children alternate their residence between both parents.

2. What happens with children under shared custody for MVI purposes?

The legislature expressly addressed this issue in Article 10(4) of RDL 20/2020, which provides that, in judicially established shared custody arrangements, children forming part of different family units shall be considered members of the household unit where they are officially domiciled, for the purposes of determining the benefit amount.

This means that, regardless of whether a parent has been granted shared custody and effectively lives with the children during alternating periods, only the parent at whose address the children are registered may include them in their household unit when applying for the MVI as an adult with dependent children. Alternating cohabitation, on its own, does not entitle a parent to include the children in their benefit application.

3. What has the Supreme Court established in Judgment 742/2025 of July 18?

The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its Judgment 742/2025 of July 18 (ECLI:ES:TS:2025:3785, Reporting Judge: Sebastián Moralo Gallego), established binding doctrine on this matter, resolving the discrepancies that existed between different High Courts of Justice. The case concerned a father with shared custody of two children who applied for the MVI including the children in his household unit. The INSS (National Social Security Institute) denied the application upon verifying that the children were registered at the mother’s address. The Social Court of Granada dismissed the claim, but the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (Granada) upheld the father’s appeal. The INSS then filed a cassation appeal for the unification of doctrine, citing as a contradictory judgment that of the High Court of Justice of Asturias dated February 21, 2023. The Supreme Court upheld the INSS’s appeal, applying a literal interpretation of Article 10(4) of RDL 20/2020. The Court acknowledged that shared custody presupposes a significant degree of cohabitation between the children and both parents, but emphasised that the legislature, fully aware of this reality, included a specific rule for these situations. According to the Court, the statutory provision is unequivocal and does not allow for flexible interpretations or proportional distribution of the benefit.

The judgment explicitly recognises that this interpretation may lead to inequitable outcomes: it may be that the parent at whose address the children are registered has sufficient financial means, while the other parent lacks resources and is genuinely in a situation of vulnerability. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court concludes that the solution to this potential injustice lies with the legislature, not the courts.

4. Can the parent not registered with the children apply for the MVI as an individual?

Yes. The Supreme Court’s doctrine does not prevent the parent who does not have the children registered at their address from applying for the MVI as an individual beneficiary, provided they meet the general requirements (legal residence, economic vulnerability, asset limits, etc.). What they cannot do is include the children in their household unit or access the amount corresponding to an adult with dependent children. In 2026, the difference between the individual beneficiary amount (€733.60 per month) and that for an adult with two children (€1,173.76 per month) is €440.16 per month, a figure that illustrates the economic significance of this issue.

5. What role does municipal registration play in the parenting plan and regulatory agreement negotiations?

Article 233-9(2) of the Catalan Civil Code requires the parenting plan to include, as minimum content, the place or places where the children will habitually reside, as well as the rules for determining which parent is responsible for care at any given time. Following the Supreme Court’s doctrine, the determination of the children’s domicile —and, by extension, their municipal registration— acquires an additional dimension that goes beyond the mere logistical organisation of custody.

In practice, both in consensual regulatory agreements and in contested proceedings, the children’s municipal registration becomes a negotiation element with direct economic implications. It is no longer merely a matter of determining where the children will reside for school or healthcare purposes, but also of establishing which parent will be able to access social benefits linked to cohabitation with children. This circumstance requires specific advice from family lawyers, who must inform their clients of the administrative and economic consequences of municipal registration before formalising agreements.

6. Are there differences between the Catalan Civil Code and the common Civil Code in this matter?

Regarding the substantive regime of shared custody, the Catalan Civil Code (Articles 233-8 to 233-11 CCCat) presents significant differences from the common Civil Code (Article 92 CC). In Catalonia, shared custody is the preferred regime, parental responsibilities retain their shared nature following separation (Article 233-8(1) CCCat), and the parenting plan is mandatory in all family proceedings (Article 233-9 CCCat). Under the common regime, shared custody is exceptional when there is no agreement between the parents, although Supreme Court case law has progressively normalised it.

However, regarding the Minimum Vital Income, regulation is national and uniform. RDL 20/2020 applies identically throughout Spain, without distinctions between autonomous communities with or without their own civil law. Therefore, the doctrine established in STS 742/2025 applies in Catalonia just as it does in the rest of Spain. The only relevant particularity is that, since shared custody is more prevalent in Catalonia than in other autonomous communities, the number of families potentially affected by this doctrine is proportionally higher.

7. What practical implications does this doctrine have for families with shared custody?

The implications are manifold and affect both preliminary advice and the subsequent management of separation situations. First, parents must be informed that the decision regarding the children’s municipal registration has direct consequences on access to social benefits. This is not a merely administrative matter but a decision with real economic impact.

Second, in cases where one parent is in a situation of economic vulnerability, it may be advisable to agree on registering the children at that parent’s address, so they can access the MVI as an adult with dependent children. This possibility should be assessed within the overall package of measures agreed or adopted in family proceedings, alongside child maintenance, the attribution of the family home, and other financial measures.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that current legislation does not provide for any formula of distribution or pro rata allocation of the benefit between both parents. Unlike other European countries such as France, Germany, or Italy, where mechanisms exist for distributing social benefits between parents with shared custody, the Spanish system is binary: the benefit corresponds entirely to the parent at the registered address, or it does not. This regulatory gap has been highlighted both by the Supreme Court judgment itself and by scholars analysing it, and could prompt future legislative reform.

CONCLUSION

Practical keys: municipal registration as a strategic decision in family proceedings.

• STS 742/2025 of July 18 has established clear doctrine: in shared custody, children are counted exclusively within the household unit of the parent at whose address they are registered, for the purposes of the Minimum Vital Income.
• Article 10(4) of RDL 20/2020 does not admit flexible interpretations or proportional distribution of the benefit between both parents.
• The parent who does not have the children registered at their address may apply for the MVI as an individual beneficiary but cannot include the children in their household unit.
• In Catalonia, where shared custody is the preferred regime (Articles 233-8 to 233-11 CCCat), the number of families affected by this doctrine is proportionally higher.
• The children’s municipal registration should be considered a negotiation element in regulatory agreements and parenting plans, with specific advice on its administrative and economic consequences.
• The Supreme Court’s doctrine acknowledges the potential inequity arising from this interpretation but reserves any reform to the legislature.
• Spanish law does not provide for mechanisms to share the MVI between parents with shared custody, unlike other European legal systems, which constitutes a gap susceptible to future reform.

______

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute personalised legal advice. For any specific queries, it is recommended to consult a qualified legal professional.